Fuel cat questions

[MattF]

Mate, if everyone was in agreeance with each other it would be boring.

True. Just trying to stop another 'pounce on Matt's post' session before one blew off again. I must have a natural, (and generally unintentional), knack of winding people up. Never understood why, personally.

[si tate]

True. Just trying to stop another 'pounce on Matt's post' session before one blew off again. I must have a natural, (and generally unintentional), knack of winding people up. Never understood why, personally.

It's cos you speak your mind & don't give a fu*k even though sometimes you are wrong, "cough" fuel cat "cough" fuel cat.

[MattF]

It's cos you speak your mind & don't give a fu*k even though sometimes you are wrong, "cough" fuel cat "cough" fuel cat.

To be totally truthful on the Fuel Cat front, that one does fall into the realm of unproven. Same as I generally trust no info which can't be proven, I also don't fob off any info unless it's disproven. It would be pretty hypocritical to be biased in that way.

So far, however, what little info is available points to their being no effect on fuel economy. Any differences noted before and after are usually down to external influences. The only way to tell for definite would be a rolling road test, but that's not exactly something which is easy or cheap to do.

The original point of that technology, (can't remember its proper name for the life of me), if I remember correctly, was for getting around fuel problems in winter with the Spitfires and Hurricanes. Its exact specifics are vague though. For its original purpose, it did appear to work, but again, info is extremely thin on the ground, so the technology does fall into that grey area of neither proven nor disproven factually.


p.s: Apache will be blackmarking me for this post.

[MattF]

Broquet catalyst. Knew I'd remember its name eventually.

[si tate]

To be totally truthful on the Fuel Cat front, that one does fall into the realm of unproven. Same as I generally trust no info which can't be proven, I also don't fob off any info unless it's disproven. It would be pretty hypocritical to be biased in that way.

So far, however, what little info is available points to their being no effect on fuel economy. Any differences noted before and after are usually down to external influences. The only way to tell for definite would be a rolling road test, but that's not exactly something which is easy or cheap to do.

The original point of that technology, (can't remember its proper name for the life of me), if I remember correctly, was for getting around fuel problems in winter with the Spitfires and Hurricanes. Its exact specifics are vague though. For its original purpose, it did appear to work, but again, info is extremely thin on the ground, so the technology does fall into that grey area of neither proven nor disproven factually.


p.s: Apache will be blackmarking me for this post.

I must admit that at least you do a bit of home work before spouting off, same as apache, "thats not a criticism of you both by the way", cos you do get some who just say "no it don't work cos mi mate said".

In that respect i do take my hat off too you.

[Apache]

p.s: Apache will be blackmarking me for this post.

'Note to self - Matt is a pseudo-scientist'

[Maverick]

Just ignore me then you lot, I don't care!

[si tate]

To be honest before mine was fitted my average was 21mpg, after it became 21.05mpg. With mine being a heated cat, it was very usefull when I was running veg. However where the surf doesn't move for a fortnight at a time she's running pure diesel now, so the cat is surplus (takes up alot of room on the bulkhead).

Just ignore me then you lot, I don't care!

Sorry maverick, it was noted what you said, just got a bit caught up there with matt.

[Apache]

Just ignore me then you lot, I don't care!

I care mate!

You were just backing up what I said with hard evidence. ie - not a jot of effect at all. Nil, zip, nada.

[si tate]

I care mate!

You were just backing up what I said with hard evidence. ie - not a jot of effect at all. Nil, zip, nada.

To be continued..................... ...................

[Maverick]

I care mate!

You were just backing up what I said with hard evidence. ie - not a jot of effect at all. Nil, zip, nada.

What do you mean nothing. I got an extra 0.05mpg, that's nothing to be sniffed at!

To be honest I've found that she returns the best economy when she is seriously loaded, towing the trailer seriously loaded, travelling between the begining of the M6 and Carlise (I may have spelt that wrong) when I sit 2 seconds (fractionally under) from the back of an HGV. Southampton to the M6 and Carlise to the top of Scotland she does normal drinking, but for that one section I normally get between 25 and 28mpg.

[Maverick]

I've just noticed a worrying trend, that I keep starting my posts "to be honest".

I'm going to lose my reputation if I'm honest.

[Albannach]

Or shampoo that 'works in 3 ways'. Why??? Shampoo that cleans your hair, makes breafast then puts the dishes in the dishwasher???

My particular favourite is "New and Improved". WTF is that about? Something can be either, but how can anything be both?

[Apache]

Never thought about that, but yes, good point!

Stickers arrived?

[Albannach]

Stickers arrived?

Aye, about to PM you. Feckin PO folded them 4 ways!